Comparison review: Eight compact SUVs

[ifcar]

Yeah, you might want to double check the rest of the links on your page..

Wait, was it the link here that was the problem or a link on the site?

[2o6]

I thought the Outlander's 3rd row was at least semi constructed like the one in the Rav4, but I am mistaken. Also, the headrests are retarded.






Rav4, at least it looks somewhat comfortable.

[ifcar]

Rav4, at least it looks somewhat comfortable.

It's not.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Yeah... that doesn't look comfortable at all...
2o6, go back to school

[Eye of the Tiger]

Wait, was it the link here that was the problem or a link on the site?

it's all good now

[2o6]

Yeah... that doesn't look comfortable at all...
2o6, go back to school

Compared to the Outlander's, I think it looks more comfortable. The Outlander's looks like one of those canvas folding picnic chairs.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Compared to the Outlander's, I think it looks more comfortable. The Outlander's looks like one of those canvas folding picnic chairs.

swift's back seaf is moar comfy than that garbage

[WookieOnRitalin]

I disagree with the low placement of the Grand Vitara. Your opening statement is quite amusing.

"For a car that ranks so low, the Grand Vitara comes off as an AWFULLY NICE vehicle."

Let's see if I can recap some of your complaints.

1: Bottom of Class Fuel Efficiency
2: Inadequate Rear Cargo Space
3: Poor Rear Visibility
4: Okay Crash Ratings

IMO, it is a Top 3 vehicle in the segment because it is the only vehicle in this comparison that actually is a Sport Utility Vehicle. There are few in this segment that can give you all the attributes of the GV. Style, Performance, Agility, Refinement (with the updated engines and better sound proofing), Off Road Capability, Exceptional Build Quality Inside and Out.

There is much to be said about the importance of ergonomics. For example, the CRV has a nice ride, but it is very hard to get connected with the cock pit. It certainly does not have the quality feel of the Vitara and it has one of the most awkward dashes in the segment. The Vitara's dash is thoughtfully laid out with big buttons that is as close to straight forward as possible. Not only does it have exceptional ergonomics and quality, but its packed with a large stack of standard features not seen in the others for the price including illuminated vanity mirrors, sliding armrest, extra padded door armrests (not just soft plastic), digital automatic climate control, and reclining rear seats. The difference between the GV and the Escape is vast. The interior of the Ford, though well designed, is a quality nightmare. The plastics inside of the Escape clink and clank quite annoyingly plus the material quality is right up there with my lego collection. Actually, that might be saying something bad about my lego collection. If they could have raised the price tag 1k for better materials, it would probably one of the best here, but without those materials, makes me want to trade it in for something else. A comfortable interior is one of the most important qualities in a vehicle. It is where we rest our minds, our joints and our backs. In this regard, the Vitara is like butta baby. 

As for some of your complaints, I have read much on the failings of the lack of cargo area behind the seats. The basic, logical question I ask most people about this is, how much space do you really need? The basic needs of most people's cargo areas is towing around things that are actually relatively small and compact (suitcase, gym bag, golf clubs, groceries, walkers, toolbox, etc). In this regard, the Suzuki rear cargo capacity is more than adequate. If you need more space, most people just put the seats down anyway. In fact, I applaud Suzuki for their choice in cargo design. In fact, I find it one of its most attractive features because I think it is one of two vehicles in the segment to offer tumble seats as opposed to fold flat seats. What you get is actually more quality cargo capacity because in a tumble seat design, the cargo floor is actually lowered. This creates a great easy-load design for the Suzuki making heavier items or more awkward items that much easier to load. Also, the tumble design also prevents objects from knocking through the front seats. A pleasant advantage when carrying longer items like kayak paddles, punching bags, chests or a bike. The other advantage to doing it this way is that cargo items sit FLAT on the floor. What you also failed to mention is that the Suzuki offers hooks along the cargo floor allowing the driver to tie items down in the cargo area so they don't slide side to side. Yet, another pleasant advantage created by the cargo design. From my perspective, the best utilitarian (the U in SUV) vehicle in this segment is the Grand Vitara because of it's exceptional cargo innovations and flexibility. The only negative to the entire design is the side hinge door that I personally have no problem with because I love the attached spare design. It only makes it inconvenient if you need to deliver something to the right side of the vehicle. A minor inconvenience that only implies the owner to take 5 extra steps. Hardly much to quibble over. Also, opening the door inside a garage should not be too difficult assuming you can open a liftgate in there as well. Frankly, the circumstances of opening the rear door/gate inside a garage are relatively small and might only apply to extreme weather conditions unless you're trying to smuggle in a dead body, drugs or weapons and you don't want your neighbors to see. : )

[Vinsanity]

swift's back seaf is moar comfy than that garbage

yeah, but how about the Swift's 3rd row?

[ifcar]

Compared to the Outlander's, I think it looks more comfortable. The Outlander's looks like one of those canvas folding picnic chairs.

Anything is more comfortable than the Outlander's seat.

However, look at the seat tracks for the RAV4's second row. In the photo, it's slid all the way forward into the front seats. If you have people in the second row, you're left with approximately zero inches of third-row leg and foot space.

[ifcar]

I disagree with the low placement of the Grand Vitara. Your opening statement is quite amusing.

"For a car that ranks so low, the Grand Vitara comes off as an AWFULLY NICE vehicle."

Let's see if I can recap some of your complaints.

1: Bottom of Class Fuel Efficiency
2: Inadequate Rear Cargo Space
3: Poor Rear Visibility
4: Okay Crash Ratings

IMO, it is a Top 3 vehicle in the segment because it is the only vehicle in this comparison that actually is a Sport Utility Vehicle. There are few in this segment that can give you all the attributes of the GV. Style, Performance, Agility, Refinement (with the updated engines and better sound proofing), Off Road Capability, Exceptional Build Quality Inside and Out.

There is much to be said about the importance of ergonomics. For example, the CRV has a nice ride, but it is very hard to get connected with the cock pit. It certainly does not have the quality feel of the Vitara and it has one of the most awkward dashes in the segment. The Vitara's dash is thoughtfully laid out with big buttons that is as close to straight forward as possible. Not only does it have exceptional ergonomics and quality, but its packed with a large stack of standard features not seen in the others for the price including illuminated vanity mirrors, sliding armrest, extra padded door armrests (not just soft plastic), digital automatic climate control, and reclining rear seats. The difference between the GV and the Escape is vast. The interior of the Ford, though well designed, is a quality nightmare. The plastics inside of the Escape clink and clank quite annoyingly plus the material quality is right up there with my lego collection. Actually, that might be saying something bad about my lego collection. If they could have raised the price tag 1k for better materials, it would probably one of the best here, but without those materials, makes me want to trade it in for something else. A comfortable interior is one of the most important qualities in a vehicle. It is where we rest our minds, our joints and our backs. In this regard, the Vitara is like butta baby. 

As for some of your complaints, I have read much on the failings of the lack of cargo area behind the seats. The basic, logical question I ask most people about this is, how much space do you really need? The basic needs of most people's cargo areas is towing around things that are actually relatively small and compact (suitcase, gym bag, golf clubs, groceries, walkers, toolbox, etc). In this regard, the Suzuki rear cargo capacity is more than adequate. If you need more space, most people just put the seats down anyway. In fact, I applaud Suzuki for their choice in cargo design. In fact, I find it one of its most attractive features because I think it is one of two vehicles in the segment to offer tumble seats as opposed to fold flat seats. What you get is actually more quality cargo capacity because in a tumble seat design, the cargo floor is actually lowered. This creates a great easy-load design for the Suzuki making heavier items or more awkward items that much easier to load. Also, the tumble design also prevents objects from knocking through the front seats. A pleasant advantage when carrying longer items like kayak paddles, punching bags, chests or a bike. The other advantage to doing it this way is that cargo items sit FLAT on the floor. What you also failed to mention is that the Suzuki offers hooks along the cargo floor allowing the driver to tie items down in the cargo area so they don't slide side to side. Yet, another pleasant advantage created by the cargo design. From my perspective, the best utilitarian (the U in SUV) vehicle in this segment is the Grand Vitara because of it's exceptional cargo innovations and flexibility. The only negative to the entire design is the side hinge door that I personally have no problem with because I love the attached spare design. It only makes it inconvenient if you need to deliver something to the right side of the vehicle. A minor inconvenience that only implies the owner to take 5 extra steps. Hardly much to quibble over. Also, opening the door inside a garage should not be too difficult assuming you can open a liftgate in there as well. Frankly, the circumstances of opening the rear door/gate inside a garage are relatively small and might only apply to extreme weather conditions unless you're trying to smuggle in a dead body, drugs or weapons and you don't want your neighbors to see. : )

You missed another key complaint: stiff ride. I actually asked the salesman when we got back to check the tire pressure to be sure something wasn't off. (Another location of this same dealer chain had sold my grandmother a Hyundai with the tires inflated to something like 60 PSI.)

Before I drove it (and before I looked at all the specs), I was indeed looking at it as a top-three vehicle, possibly the winner, based on just sitting in it at auto shows and running the pricing. But not after.

One thing you mentioned is that it's a "true SUV," with off-road capability and so forth. However, with the stiffest ride and the lowest gas mileage, it's also the closest to a true SUV in those areas as well, and more people are likely to get gas or drive over a bump than go off-roading. Off-road capability in a comparison of car-based SUVs is of pretty much zero importance; all can do the basics and rarely will any be asked to do anything more.


Also: (less essential points)

re ergonomics: the big buttons comment only applies to some controls. Audio? Not so much. But I don't tend to put much emphasis on control layout unless it's so bad it distracts from driving the car.

re cargo space: at home, we have a first-gen Scion xB, which has about as much floor space as the Grand Vitara behind the rear seat. It's very easy to put the seat down, but you have to do it often, like after grocery shopping. And that gives your groceries the entire car to roam when you hit the brakes. It's nice to fit things behind the rear seat; folding it down should be a last resort. Also, several others have tumbling rather than folding seats: Outlander, Escape, and CR-V, and maybe more. (Not looking at my notes right now.)

[WookieOnRitalin]

You're right, the ride is a little stiffer, but it is hardly obtrusive. I actually prefer it. From my perspective, if you want a softer ride and flexibility just go get a wagon with superior fuel efficiency like your xB.

Perhaps my perspective is a little different. I have owned some pretty STIFF rides and still do. I have not owned a vehicle not made before 1995 including a '92 Ford Explorer and a '93 Jeep GC (with 300k, original engine, transmission replaced at 260k and I still it drive today). For me, an SUV is made for pounding and destruction. It is about taking you places other vehicles cannot take you. I need more durability from a vehicle and something that can take a punishment. So stepping into the Grand Vitara and driving it seems like a paradise in comparison to what I've been driving. The ride is significantly softer than both of my other vehicles, has as much off road ability, handles better, gets twice the gas mileage, and actually just as spacious as my Jeep. Stepping into the Grand Vitara is more of a paradise for me after riding in those two vehicles.

I need more capability from my SUV especially with the ability to tackle off-road surfaces especially when I am in the mountains. After being in all of the others, I do not feel the same confidence to do that job. The only vehicle that gave me similar confidence was the Forester which is an excellent vehicle. The Rogue, Rav4, CR-V, and Escape just seem like junk to me. When faced with a challenge or pushed, they cry and whine. The GV just asks for more and more.

[ifcar]

You're right, the ride is a little stiffer, but it is hardly obtrusive. I actually prefer it. From my perspective, if you want a softer ride and flexibility just go get a wagon with superior fuel efficiency like your xB.

The 1st-gen Scion hatches have very stiff rides. You'd love 'em, I guess. But if you want AWD -- for all-weather traction, not for stream-fording off-road ability -- it's the wrong car. It's also much smaller inside than most compact SUVs, if not the Grand Vitara.

Perhaps my perspective is a little different. I have owned some pretty STIFF rides and still do. I have not owned a vehicle not made before 1995 including a '92 Ford Explorer and a '93 Jeep GC (with 300k, original engine, transmission replaced at 260k and I still it drive today). For me, an SUV is made for pounding and destruction. It is about taking you places other vehicles cannot take you. I need more durability from a vehicle and something that can take a punishment. So stepping into the Grand Vitara and driving it seems like a paradise in comparison to what I've been driving. The ride is significantly softer than both of my other vehicles, has as much off road ability, handles better, gets twice the gas mileage, and actually just as spacious as my Jeep. Stepping into the Grand Vitara is more of a paradise for me after riding in those two vehicles.

I need more capability from my SUV especially with the ability to tackle off-road surfaces especially when I am in the mountains. After being in all of the others, I do not feel the same confidence to do that job. The only vehicle that gave me similar confidence was the Forester which is an excellent vehicle. The Rogue, Rav4, CR-V, and Escape just seem like junk to me. When faced with a challenge or pushed, they cry and whine. The GV just asks for more and more.

I'll ask you the same question I asked R-inge: do you prefer the Grand Vitara just because it's the most like a truck of a bunch of cars, or would you actually pick it over another trucky SUV?

If you're looking for truck qualities, you're not shopping the CR-V or the Rogue anyway, so it wouldn't make sense to compare them that way. This is strictly on-road, for the people who don't think the purpose of a $20,000 car is to punish it and see how it reacts.

[WookieOnRitalin]

The 1st-gen Scion hatches have very stiff rides. You'd love 'em, I guess. But if you want AWD -- for all-weather traction, not for stream-fording off-road ability -- it's the wrong car. It's also much smaller inside than most compact SUVs, if not the Grand Vitara.
I'll ask you the same question I asked R-inge: do you prefer the Grand Vitara just because it's the most like a truck of a bunch of cars, or would you actually pick it over another trucky SUV?

If you're looking for truck qualities, you're not shopping the CR-V or the Rogue anyway, so it wouldn't make sense to compare them that way. This is strictly on-road, for the people who don't think the purpose of a $20,000 car is to punish it and see how it reacts.

I'm not looking for truck qualities, but instead, looking for a great compromise between truck and car. This is what the GV represents to me. I do not like trucks and I do not like big SUVs either. I prefer a more compact design comparable to my 93 Jeep GC. The other trucky SUVs do not offer 4-cylinder options in a 4x4 and leads to their excessive weight and poor fuel efficiency (Xterra, Liberty, etc). I am not looking at those vehicles because their rides are far too obtrusive and the cabins are not very inviting nor comfortable. It's about being able to dance between both worlds. I also enjoy the RWD-favored 4x4 of the GV compared to the other FWD-favored AWD systems of the other vehicles. To me, I rate these vehicles on their ability to dance between both worlds. The GV does the best job doing that, hands down.

The reason I know a lot about these vehicles is I have been looking at all of them for some time now. They offer a lot of what I am looking for in quality, utility, compact design, comfort, good ride/handling, and the ability to tackle rough terrain when asked.

I won't lie, it is my favorite vehicle here. The Forester is right behind it, but everyone has different tastes. I just don't find the same faults with the GV as you do. The biggest problems I have with the GV are silly things like a lack of an auxiliary input and no telescoping wheel. To me, these are things I can live without because I've been living without them for some time. I can always get a better stereo if I want and have an aux connection.

If I was ranking this class based on my tastes, it would go:

1. Grand Vitara
2. Forester
3. Rav4
4. Escape
5: Outlander
6. CR-V
7. Patriot

[ifcar]

"To me, I rate these vehicles on their ability to dance between both worlds. The GV does the best job doing that, hands down."

Got it. Without any experience in any of these SUVs off-road, I'd probably agree with your ranking under those criteria, though I'd likely move up the Patriot for allegedly doing pretty well off-road for a cute-ute despite its general cruddiness on-road.

[the Teuton]

I don't like the "Honda-ness" or "Toyota-ness" of the two SUV offerings made by those respective brands.  They just feel too generic to me.  The vehicle needs to have some personality.

Here's my rankings based on personal preferences and what I know:

1. Forester
2. Grand Vitara
3. CRV
4. Escape
5. Rav4
6. Outlander
7. Patriot

[ifcar]

I don't like the "Honda-ness" or "Toyota-ness" of the two SUV offerings made by those respective brands.  They just feel too generic to me.  The vehicle needs to have some personality.

The Forester doesn't have any personality. It's as bland as either of those two, and with less steering feel to boot.

[the Teuton]

The Forester doesn't have any personality. It's as bland as either of those two, and with less steering feel to boot.

I need to drive one, but I like the interior more.

Subarus have very light -- but accurate -- steering.  I'll have to test drive them.  But I will stand by my statement.

[ifcar]

I need to drive one, but I like the interior more.

Subarus have very light -- but accurate -- steering.  I'll have to test drive them.  But I will stand by my statement.

"Light but accurate" defines the CR-V and RAV4.

[ifcar]

Fifth Place: 2009 Nissan Rogue S

Nissan was one of the last major automakers that was not selling a compact car-based SUV in the U.S. before it introduced the Rogue as a 2008 model. Needing to distinguish its new product from the established competition, the automaker has marketed the Rogue as something of a sporty utility vehicle.

It isn?t one...

Continued at link:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-1017-DC-Car-Examiner~y2009m4d16-Comparsion-review-eight-compact-SUVs-fifth-place

[CALL_911]

Fifth Place: 2009 Nissan Rogue S



Continued at link:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-1017-DC-Car-Examiner~y2009m4d16-Comparsion-review-eight-compact-SUVs-fifth-place

You're the only one who seems to think it isn't the "sports car" in the class. Car and Driver kept dwelling on it in their last mini-SUV comparo.

[ifcar]

You're the only one who seems to think it isn't the "sports car" in the class. Car and Driver kept dwelling on it in their last mini-SUV comparo.

Reviewers seem pretty split on the point. I found nothing remotely sporty about it. Same with the Altima 4-cylinder -- C/D raved about it but it was nothing close to the Mazda6 and even a step down from the Accord.

[ifcar]

Fourth Place: 2009 Ford Escape XLS

The Ford Escape doesn?t have the ride comfort of some of its newer competitors, nor the agility. It doesn?t have their interior quality or versatility either, or their overall refinement. 

But for an SUV that first appeared in 2001, it remains competitive as it offers a distinct flavor of basic competence...

Continued at link:
http://www.examiner.com/x-1017-DC-Car-Examiner~y2009m4d17-Comparsion-review-eight-compact-SUVs-fourth-place

[S204STi]

Nice, Forester is at least Top 3!  This might be the first time a Subaru has placed so well in an Ifcar comparo.

[Vinsanity]

Nice, Forester is at least Top 3!  This might be the first time a Subaru has placed so well in an Ifcar comparo.

from what iffy has hinted, the Forester now is more CR-V and Rav-4 like than ever

[ifcar]

Third Place: 2009 Honda CR-V LX

In many of the market classes they compete, Hondas are very nice but overpriced compared to the competition, as the automaker can use its reputation to charge more than a competitor can for a product that?s as good or better.

But although the CR-V is hardly unpopular ? it?s the best-selling of these eight and the top-seller among all SUVs in the country ? it isn?t any more expensive than the competition, at $20,610 out the door. And even despite a decent discount off the sticker price, the CR-V is projected to retain its value very well.

However...

Continued at link:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-1017-DC-Car-Examiner~y2009m4d18-Comparsion-review-eight-compact-SUVs-third-place

[CALL_911]

"its mediocre IIHS score for roof strength costs it points on the safety front."

Sigh. It lost because of that?

[the Teuton]

Iffy, you just screwed up my bracket.

So the Forester is officially top 2.  I bet it will beat the Toyota.  It has something the Rav4 doesn't:  an engine that feels like it has torque.

[CALL_911]

Iffy, you just screwed up my bracket.

So the Forester is officially top 2.  I bet it will beat the Toyota.  It has something the Rav4 doesn't:  an engine that feels like it has torque.

Who are you kidding, the 2.5's a dog.

[the Teuton]

Who are you kidding, the 2.5's a dog.

The 2.5 is a dog, but it has a pretty flat torque curve.  The 2.4 I4 in the Rav4 is buzzy and obnoxious.